Hot Coffee Documentary: Summary Paper Example

Introduction

"Hot Coffee" is a 2011 documentary film directed by Susan Saladoff. It presents a discussion as well as an analysis of the impact of tort reform on the United States judicial system. Saladoff, being a medical malpractice attorney for 26 years, used four exhibit cases to direct the discussion to try and explain the dark side of tort reform. She begins with the famous case of Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (1994) where she argues that corporations misrepresented the Liebeck case to dupe state legislatures into passing the tort laws. Liebeck was the plaintiff in the above case in which she won against McDonald's after she got burnt with hot tea the restaurant served her, and she was awarded $2.86 million. According to Saladoff, the proponents of tort reform did not consider hard facts of the case that demonstrate fault on the side of the restaurant such as continuing to serve hot coffee after receiving more than 700 reports of burning, and she argues that it was out of negligence and the case was meritorious. She goes ahead to present another story of Oliver Diaz to illustrate a case in which the U.S Chamber of Commerce funneled money into judicial campaigns for pro-tort reformists. According to Saladoff, corporations through Chamber of commerce contributed funds to ensure passage of tort laws. She also presents stories of Colin Gourley, a boy who sustained brain damage from medical malpractice, and Jamie Leigh Jones, a woman who was raped and imprisoned as she was working for Halliburton, to show sympathy for victims who may not get deserved compensation because of tort reform.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

From my perspective, the movie is emotionally charged. Saladoff is a persuasive person who uses tragic and sympathy stories of the victims to garner sympathy for anti-tort reform. Saladoff lacks objectivity in her presentations and does not put the tort reform on a balanced weighing scale for the viewer to judge the truth.

Tort Reform

Tort reform is a legislation passed in some states aimed at reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits against medical practitioners or corporations for purposeful or negligent conduct that result in injury. Tort reform also aims at capping amount in recovery that a victim who files a meritorious lawsuit can get in compensation for damages or injuries (Deng & Zanjani, (2018). Although tort reform reduces rightful compensation for a victim of a negligent action, I do agree with it especially in the field of medical practice because, in the long run, it moderates healthcare costs. For example, in 1975 when tort laws had not been implemented, about 14,000 medical malpractice suits were filed resulting in an award on average of $171,000 (Ottenwess, Lamberti, Ottenwess & Dresevic, 2011). Consequently, most of the insurance companies declined to cover medical practitioners because of huge amounts in recovery resulting from frivolous lawsuits, and the few remaining insurers increased their premiums for medical practitioners who in turn passed the cost to consumers by increasing medical bills. From this illustration, I agree with tort reform as it prevents high compensations for frivolous cases which only serve to punish the majority of citizens who need medical care at affordable prices. California State has tort reform in place under the Tort Claims Act which provides guidance on the determination of lawsuits relating to public entities and claims recovery (Van Alstyne & Coates, 2009)

Although tort reform protects corporations against frivolous litigations, filing a meritorious case against large corporations is challenging. Dealing with day-to-day expenses, affording suitable representation and dealing with aggressive defense tactics are some of the common challenges (Reinert, 2009). Civil litigations are quite expensive because the victim has to meet medical expenses for injuries as well as servicing the lawsuit. Also during this time, the victim may be disabled hence no income. Moreover, civil cases require expert lawyers who understand finer items of the law relating to the claim; otherwise, inexperienced lawyers can easily be outsmarted by the expert corporation attorneys. Besides representation, large corporations have money and can afford the best national or international lawyers who can employ any possible tactic to get the case drawn out of the court.

Judicial Elections

In the state of California, judicial elections are held for trial judges. This technique of electing judges is advantages in some ways. Elected judges are more independent than appointed ones. They are the peoples' choice and make the citizens feel like they own the courts which are not partisan. Nonetheless, judicial elections have several drawbacks. During campaigns, contestants have to solicit money from law firms and lawyers who will eventually appear before them leading to a conflict of interest. Also, voter turnout in judicial elections is low because citizens are unfamiliar with persons contesting to be judges (State University System of Florida, 2004).

In California, one becomes a trial judge by being elected through a popular nonpartisan election. Trial judges serve for six years. For appellate state and supreme courts, the judges are appointed by the governor followed by commission confirmation, and they serve or twelve years (National Center for State Courts, n.d.).

References

Deng, Y., & Zanjani, G. (2018). What drives tort reform legislation? An analysis of state decisions to restrict liability torts. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 85(4), 959-991.

Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1994

National Center for State Courts. (n.d.). Judicial selection in the states: California. Retrieved from http://judicialselection.us/judicial_selection/index.cfm?state=CA

Reinert, A. (2009). Procedural barriers to civil rights litigation and the illusory promise of equity. UMKC L. Rev., 78, 931.

Saladoff, S. (2011). Hot coffee [Motion picture]. United States: HBO.

State University System of Florida (2004). Outline of the U.S legal system. United States Department of State.

Ottenwess, D. M., Lamberti, M. A., Ottenwess, S. P., & Dresevic, A. D. (2011). Medical malpractice tort reform. Radiol Manage, 33, 30-35. https://www.thehealthlawpartners.com/files/rm332_p30-36_features.pdf

Van Alstyne, A., & Coates, T. T. (2009). California Government Tort Liability Practice (Vol. 2). Continuing Education of the Bar--California.